If a citizen is on welfare and not contributing anything to society, should they be allowed to participate in the democratic process? Should voting be a reward for the people that actually do the right things and work hard/stay out of jail? Or would this be unfair to the democrats?
2007-02-03 04:09:13 · 13 answers · asked by Matt 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I don't think you need to be paying taxes to vote. As far a welfare, think about it though, if you are too lazy to get a job, you are probably too lazy to get registered to vote and actually vote.
2007-02-03 04:20:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
When you start to eliminate the right to vote (note the phrase - the RIGHT to vote) you have opened the door to a series of dangerous precedents.
Our history has been that we have (gradually, unfortunately) opened the right to vote to blacks, to women. If you are a citizen, you have a stake in the country, and a right to express your opinion.
And I respectfully question that someone who is on welfare is not contributing to society. Many people on welfare are raising children, helping in their community - because of our strange system, there are people who can better take care of their families through welfare participation than by working at the jobs they are qualified for.
We also increasingly are finding that not everyone who is in jail was put there rightfully.
I think I trust the system and the will of the majority. I am certainly nervous about investing total control in the hands of the rich - they have enough power as it is.
2007-02-03 04:39:46 · answer #2 · answered by Uncle John 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ignoring the element of who gets to decide who gets to vote, think about the fact that traditionally, the people you're referencing don't vote in large numbers so eleminating their vote all together won't have much of an impact on election outcomes anyway. It's like in the '70s when they were debating lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 - some people worried that it would result in a large number of young, inexperienced voters voting on erroneous grounds. It turns out the 18-20 year old bunch tends not to vote and those in that age in group who do vote are actually quite informed on the candidates and issues.
As for whether it would be unfair to the democrats, that depemds on which party is currently preceived to be more sympathetic to the poor - democrats and republicans take turns on that.
2007-02-03 04:21:21 · answer #3 · answered by eschampion 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One has nothing to do with the other, Paying taxes is obviously the result of earning an income. If this person is on welfare and disable or not able to work for whatever reasons, obviously he or she is not capable of paying taxes.
Regardless of that situation, participation in voting is still his or her right as an US citizen, and being poor or being on welfare does not takes that right away from the person to vote and exercise what ever right the US Constitution has given the people of the United States.
2007-02-03 04:16:32 · answer #4 · answered by imfreir 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In the founding of America, only landowners had the right to vote, much along the lines of the Patricians of the Roman Republic. The founders were also concerned that having universal suffrage would lead to those who lacked education or a financial stake in the government would repeat the Roman plebes' voting themselves "bread & circuses".
This is really an interesting point of debate, whether people who are essentially wards of the state, relying upon unConstitutional federal largesse in order to live, should be voting, especially when they vote for people who promise to give them more.
This is the reason the founders considered a welfare state incompatible with the limited government as defined by the Constitution.
2007-02-03 04:24:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, the purpose of voting is to have politicians who best represent the wishes of ALL citizens. Obviously no one politician can act on behalf of every single person as people have conflicting views, but allowing everyone to vote is one way of discouraging minority rule.
If you do not like it, perhaps you should not live in a democracy. However, if you wanted to only award those who contribute to society the right to vote, housewives, college students who do not work, etc should never be allowed to vote since they don't hold a paying job and obviously do not "contribute to society" (by your definition) even though they still are affected by our government and its decisions.
As a side not, many significant historical figures (Aristotle, Rousseau, and Jefferson) feared that economic & class inequality would translate into political inequality, and our founding fathers aimed to prevent this, one of the reasons why titles of nobility are prohibited in the Constitution.
2007-02-03 05:24:42 · answer #6 · answered by Ashley 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If applied right, is makes a lot of sense, otherwise responsible people like me (upper middle class at a 42% tax rate) get robbed.
For instance Social Security could be run by a board of directors that is voted on by actual social security tax payers. A city could separate city budgets in to property tax payer associations that would determine a their won board of directors to pay out there money and a general fund board that would handle general funds and civil rules.
When it comes to money (that is earned) I have learned that one shouldn't be bashful about the golden rule -- he that makes the gold makes the rules. It takes a certain amount of smarts to get that money in the first place. I'm a Democrat in that I believe in taking care of those that can't help themselves but I have no pity when a man litters up my city and beg gs for me for money because they are too lazy to have a job. I've worked for my money lazy drudged up alcoholic people can starve as far as I care and I don't think they have a right to vote away my paycheck for their housing and food and medical care. Something is real stupid about that.
2007-02-03 04:29:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Once you start taking away voting rights for some despised class of people or people you don't like, you open the door to taking away voting rights for anyone and everyone. When the constitution was adopted, only white men who owned property were allowed to vote since it was thought that those who pay for the costs of government (property taxes) should be the ones to vote.
I would not be in favor of eliminating any voting rights. It's essentially undemocratic.
2007-02-03 04:15:32 · answer #8 · answered by Shelley 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it relatively is a moot question as absolutely everyone that buys something from a save pays taxes. no person would not pay taxes different than persons that stay off the land and don't contain themselves in society in any respect. they might not vote besides. Now you may qualify what constitutes paying ideal taxes to permit and disallow vote casting. re-evaluate your question please. and supply up ingesting he political Koolaid. the two events suck and are in basic terms out for potential over the ignorant & dumb hundreds. What we choose is not any toddlers allowed to persons that don't take parenting training and extra appropriate paid instructors so questions like those by no potential floor. And in basic terms 2 teenagers in keeping with parents to maintain the smart gene pool up slightly extra suitable than it relatively is. Too many sheeple listening to the fans on the two components of this old social gathering device. This u . s . needs to rebuild from scratch or a minimum of stick to what the unique leaders needed in the form.
2016-10-01 09:00:35 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many people who are disabled do not pay taxes they paid taxes up until they became disabled.They have as much right to vote as any other US citizen If we start telling people they can't vote we would be not better then any other dictatorship in the world
2007-02-03 04:16:14 · answer #10 · answered by Chris 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋